Pride & Prejudice and Confucius_Katherine Neal

Pride & Prejudice: A confucian reading of jane austen’s classic novel and characters

By: Katherine Neal

DR. AMY OLBERDINGIAS/PHIL 4343/5343

Fall 2016

Etiquette and manners are essential parts of every society. But how do we determine and

apply etiquette in our lives? This question is necessarily answered by the internal characteristics

of the society in which a person lives. In Britain, for example, who may introduce and speak to

whom is no longer dictated by socioeconomic class. However, “the British class system is still

very much intact although in a more subconscious way”1. According to the website

travelchinaguide.com, however, China still has some etiquette rules governing how people are

introduced: “The junior should be introduced to the senior first; the male should be introduced to

the female first; the inferior should be introduced to the superior first; the host should be

introduced to the guest first”2. These structures for introduction are very similar to those used in

Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen, and were to an extent the kind of foundational concepts of

ritual propriety (li 禮) in the time of Confucius. However, Confucius and Austen each used

etiquette for very different purposes: Confucius used etiquette and ritual propriety as the basis for

social harmony, while Austen used etiquette as a satirical commentary on British society in the

Regency era.

Unlike Confucius, Austen’s goal in Pride and Prejudice is not to offer an alternative to

the current behaviors of her society, but to point out the frivolity and over-emphasis that people

in the Regency era placed on manners and socioeconomic status. Confucius, on the other hand,

discusses and promotes ritual propriety as a method of returning to what he considered the

“golden age” of ancient Chinese culture: the Zhou dynasties. Confucius sees the destruction of

war all around him, and encourages people to look to the past to find ways for promoting peace.

Confucius does not see frivolity around him to be laughed at, but rather a morally reprehensible

situation that must be corrected. In this paper, I analyze the characters in Pride and Prejudice

using Confucian philosophy to determine to what extent they are “Confucian”; that is, whether or

2

not Confucius would approve of their behavior as it pertains to ritual propriety, and to what

extent.

Before any proper analysis of Pride and Prejudice can be made, we must first establish

Confucius’ philosophical objectives. Pride and Prejudice can only be understood from a

Confucian perspective if we first understand why he placed so much importance on ritual

propriety, and what he views as correct and incorrect applications of ritual. From a philosophical

perspective, Confucius is rather different from what those who are most familiar with Western

philosophy would expect. Confucius, because he was living during the Warring States period,

was less concerned with universal concepts, and more with preventing the moral degradation of

society. Confucius wanted to promote harmony in his home state and others. War does not

facilitate opportunities to ponder universal concepts such as the good or bad state of human

nature. However, achieving harmony just for the sake of harmony (go along to get along), is not

good either: “But when things are not going well, to realize harmony just for its own sake

without regulating the situation through observing ritual propriety will not work”3. Confucius

seems to view this as a sort of counterfeit “harmony”. Performing ritual propriety merely to

please others, rather than for the good of all society, is not true “harmony”, because a false

attitude simmers under the surface. If “keeping up appearances” is prioritized above all else,

then one’s principles might be compromised: if the spirit of ritual propriety is ignored to

maintain the appearance of harmony, people might agree to do things that prevent them from

becoming ren (仁). “Harmony” without regard for ritual propriety is not true harmony (和). For

Confucius, this regard for ritual propriety is the backbone of society.

When studying the Analects, one central idea is that who we are as individuals is

governed by our roles and place in society: father, mother, brother, sister, etc., and that the rules

3

of ritual propriety should govern our everyday behavior, from the most mundane to the most

extraordinary circumstance. There are three central theses to Confucian role ethics: “1. …the

constitutive-thesis: persons are constituted by their roles and relationships, 2. …the achievement-

thesis: full personhood is an achievement of ren, 3. …the determinative-thesis: obligations and

duties encoded in one’s roles and relationships determine ren”4. This clearly shows that many

role ethicists define personhood, in Confucianism, as first being defined by your relationships

with others, and then by the achievement of ren, which in turn is defined by the rituals and

customs of everyday life. For Confucius, ritual propriety is determined by one’s relationships

with others and role in society, and should therefore determine how one approaches every

situation in one’s life.

Although Confucius does rather overtly say that ritual should play a large role in one’s

life, understanding why he places such emphasis on ritual is much more challenging to define.

For example, “Lin Fang asked about the roots of observing ritual propriety (li 禮). The Master

replied, ‘What an important question! In observing ritual propriety, it is better to be modest than

extravagant; in mourning, it is better to express real grief than to worry about formal details’”5.

On first reading, this seems to completely contradict everything Confucius has said previously

about the importance of following ritual. But then, is Confucius really being contradictory to his

own teachings? Not necessarily: in reality, he is addressing the heart of ritual propriety itself –

that it is the heart of the person and their intentions that truly matter rather than the specific

forms and protocol. Therefore, if one is in mourning and ritual calls for certain details of the

funeral or the act of mourning to be present, but the mourner can express true grief without those

minute details, he is free to do so; and Confucius would rather the mourner leave out the

4

minutiae in favor of truly expressing his grief than go to extremes merely to satisfy ritual. At the

same time, Confucius does not want ritual to be removed completely from one’s behavior.

“The Master said, ‘Deference unmediated by observing ritual propriety (li 禮) is lethargy;

caution unmediated by observing ritual propriety is timidity; boldness unmediated by observing

ritual propriety is rowdiness; candor unmediated by observing ritual propriety is rudeness”6.

Essentially, Confucius seems to say that deference, caution, boldness, and candor are genuine

and good if one is behaving in observance of 禮. If one is not observing ritual, one is lethargic,

timid, rowdy, and rude. He is saying that we cannot behave well or properly without 禮. We, as

human beings, behave in many situations with consideration as to how others perceive us. If

Confucius’ followers thought others would perceive them as lethargic, timid, etc., that would

certainly be motivation to pay special attention to observing ritual as a way of expressing

deference, caution, and so forth.

However, Confucius did seem to want to present becoming ren as attainable for the

everyday person. His examples of ritual are of common situations and incidents in which a

person may reasonably find himself or herself. Confucius did not intend for the common man to

perform extraordinary, heroic acts of goodness. Li (禮) is the practice of ritual in one’s daily

activities. Confucius would not sit down to eat “unless the mats were properly placed”7 –this

emphasizes that even the smallest details matter. Confucius might say that the junzi pays

attention in all matters, no matter how small, because every interaction matters. After all, if

someone ignores the small details, that person might be more likely to not pay attention in more

important matters. Such minutiae in common social etiquette can easily be seen in Jane Austen’s

Pride & Prejudice.

5

In Jane Austen’s Regency Era Britain, social etiquette truly governed every aspect of

one’s life and was based on one’s socioeconomic class. Class determined who could speak to

whom, who could marry whom, how one was to speak, dress, etc. This is very apparent in

chapter 18 during the scenes at the Netherfield Ball: Mr. Collins, cousin to Mr. Bennet and

therefore Elizabeth, has discovered that Mr. Darcy is the nephew of his patroness Lady Catherine

de Bourgh, and decides to go and introduce himself to Mr. Darcy:

Elizabeth tried hard to dissuade him from such a scheme, assuring him that

Mr. Darcy would consider his addressing him without introduction as an

impertinent freedom, rather than a compliment to his aunt; that it was not

in the least necessary there should be any notice on either side; and that if it

were, it must belong to Mr. Darcy, the superior in consequence, to begin the

acquaintance8.

Mr. Collins, because he was a clergyman, and Mr. Darcy, because he was one of the wealthiest

men in England, could not have spoken to each other without a formal introduction. As

Elizabeth tries to point out to Mr. Collins, because Mr. Darcy is so much richer than he,

according to social propriety Mr. Darcy must choose to begin the acquaintance. Mr. Collins

cannot simply walk up to him and begin speaking. Such behavior would be seen as arrogant

given Mr. Collins’ lower socioeconomic status. There are many examples throughout the entire

novel of Elizabeth or her elder sister Jane attempting to convince their family members to behave

“according to propriety”, but there are two very specific instances where there are very severe

breaches of propriety and etiquette as they pertain to morality.

Those two instances are firstly, Mr. Wickham’s attempt to ruin the reputation of

Georgiana Darcy, as mentioned in Mr. Darcy’s letter to Elizabeth in chapter 35, “His revenge

would have been complete indeed”9; and secondly, when Lydia ran off with Mr. Wickham in

chapter 46, as Jane mentions in her letters to Elizabeth, who is travelling: “‘When I consider,’

6

she added in a yet more agitated voice, ‘that I might have prevented it! I, who knew what he

was’”10. In the first example, Mr. Wickham is attempting to get revenge on Mr. Darcy because,

even though he had given up becoming a clergyman, Wickham still expected Darcy to give him

the house which he was promised on the condition that he took orders. Darcy refused to give

him “the living”—because Mr. Wickham did not enter the clergy. In retribution, Wickham

attempted to destroy not only Georgiana Darcy’s reputation and respectability, but ultimately her

future.

Mr. Wickham’s scheme was especially heinous because Georgiana was only 15 years old

when he, a 30-something year old man, seduced her and convinced her to elope with him. She

did not go through with it, and instead told Darcy about the plan. If Wickham and Georgiana

had indeed eloped, this would have destroyed her reputation, and therefore Darcy’s by

association. No one who considered themselves respectable, that is, correct in all aspects of

etiquette and propriety, would have wanted to be associated with either Georgiana or Darcy. As

such, Wickham’s scheme would have led to their social ruin. When Elizabeth tells Jane about

this after reading a letter from Mr. Darcy which explains his previous conduct, Jane is

thoroughly shocked: “What a stroke was this for poor Jane! who would willingly have gone

through the world without believing that so much wickedness existed in the whole race of

mankind as was here collected in one individual”11. Elizabeth and Jane apply this same logic of

“tainted by association” when Wickham attempts this same trick on Lydia Bennet, the youngest

daughter, who is only 16 years old herself.

After reading Mr. Darcy’s letter, Elizabeth views both her conduct and Mr. Wickham’s in

an entirely different light. She begins to see Mr. Wickham’s true character: vengeful.

Unfortunately, when he discovers that Elizabeth will no longer believe his lies about Mr. Darcy,

7

he decides to exact vengeance on her and her family. Lydia, “the most determined flirt that ever

made herself and her family ridiculous”12, has been obsessed with the officers of a regiment of

the militia that has been staying in Meryton, the town near their home, for the winter. At the end

of the winter, Lydia travels with the colonel of the regiment and his wife to the next campsite at

Brighton. Right before they leave, Elizabeth has her conversation with Wickham in which she

says that she knows Mr. Darcy more fully now, and that by “knowing him better, his disposition

was better understood”13. This is what sparks the idea of revenge for Wickham.

In chapter 46, Elizabeth reads a letter from Jane stating that Lydia has run off with Mr.

Wickham. Unlike Georgiana, Lydia did not have enough sense, or shame, at the idea of eloping

with Mr. Wickham to change her mind and inform anyone of the plan. Lydia is, by far, the most

oblivious to social etiquette and ritual of any character in the book. She does not think beyond

the next party, or about how her actions affect those around her; she certainly does not keep

propriety at the forefront of her mind—for these reasons, Elizabeth is overcome with shame,

guilt, shock, and anxiety when she finds out that Lydia has run off to Scotland to get married.

Lydia’s absolute want of etiquette and manners has left her sisters exposed to the scorn of

everyone around them; and their chances of “marrying well”, though mentioned as never being

very great, are seemingly gone for good.

Lydia, therefore, is likely the least in keeping with Confucian philosophy and ritual

propriety. She has no regard whatsoever for the etiquette and rituals of her society. As

mentioned above, she does not consider how society will view her sisters, nor her sisters’ futures

when she runs away with Mr. Wickham. Confucius says that even if a person, in his heart, does

not truly feel something, he should at least outwardly appear to express the appropriate emotion.

By this, he means that even if someone does not feel what society says he or she should, or

8

doesn’t agree with the ritual, he or she should still follow the ritual, because this promotes social

harmony. Lydia does neither: she neither feels in a way that is socially proper, nor does she act

in a way that is in keeping with society’s rituals and etiquette. Rather, she does exactly as she

chooses.

At the Netherfield ball, for example, she runs around the room, playing keep-away with

an officer’s sword. Firstly, she is breaking etiquette by playing around at a formal event, and

secondly, by taking the officer’s sword, she is engaging in play with a man. Even though they

were introduced, such behavior is not tolerated in Regency society. For this reason, Confucius

would likely completely disapprove of Lydia: she makes no attempt to even pay lip-service to

ritual at all. Lydia is called “silly” throughout the novel, but this appears to be in reference to

substance, rather than style.

This is not to say that Lydia is the most morally reprehensible character in any

estimation; that dubious distinction must belong to Wickham. However, being silly is not

necessarily better than being immoral, because that silliness makes her vulnerable to immoral

actions such as her elopement with Wickham. Silliness has led her to breach one of the most

basic tenets of Regency social etiquette. Confucius would therefore recommend that Lydia be

taught proper ritual propriety as a method of steering the substance of her behavior, and therefore

building her moral character. This presents a dilemma, however, because focusing only on

following the protocol of ritual could be counterproductive and create that false social harmony

which Confucius warns against. The idea that emphasizing the style of ritual over substance

creates false social harmony would likely cause Mrs. Bennet to also be viewed rather lowly in

Confucius’ estimation.

9

Mrs. Bennet, in slight contrast to Lydia, at least seems to give a slight nod in the direction

of ritual propriety. When the book first opens and she is describing the imminent arrival of Mr.

Bingley at Netherfield, she says that Mr. Bennet should go and visit Mr. Bingley as soon as

possible. She tells him, “Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him if you

do not”14. In this way, Mrs. Bennet is at least showing that she is sensible of the form of ritual in

British society. However, she also acts in ways that, although not necessarily willfully ignorant,

are at least oblivious to the substance of ritual.

The Netherfield ball seems to be the moment when Elizabeth’s family, excluding Jane,

feels compelled to “expose themselves” the most. Mrs. Bennet speaks in a loud voice about her

expectation that Mr. Bingley will propose to Jane to anyone who will listen. Lydia and Kitty are

running around playing with the officers; Mary, although not directly asked to perform, rushes to

the pianoforte, where she plays well, but sings extremely poorly. Elizabeth, knowing that Mary

will be there all night if not stopped, tries to signal Mr. Bennet to, between songs, discreetly

“nudge” Mary to cease in favor of others; but Mr. Bennet stops Mary mid-performance and tells

her to “let the other young ladies have time to exhibit”15. Elizabeth and Jane are mortified all

evening by the behavior of their family members, who seem to have no regard whatsoever for

etiquette. Given these examples and many others throughout the novel, Confucius would likely

highly disapprove of Mrs. Bennet, Mary, Kitty, Lydia, and even Mr. Bennet.

As far as the secondary characters, Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Mr.

Wickham, Confucius would likely say that although they follow the style of ritual, they have

none of the substance. Mr. Wickham is the best example of this, and Elizabeth even points this

out when discussing Mr. Darcy’s letter with Jane: “‘There certainly was some great

mismanagement in the education of those two young men. One has got all the goodness and the

10

other all the appearance of it’”16. Mr. Wickham is described by Mr. Darcy as having the “happy

manners as may insure his making friends; whether he may be equally capable of retaining them

is less certain”17. Darcy seems to be pointing out in this passage that Mr. Wickham has style but

no substance. Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh are somewhat similar in this respect.

Mr. Collins is described as arrogant and humble at the same time; that “early preferment”

had gone to his head, and the result is that he became a strange mixture of “pride and

obsequiousness, self-importance and humility”18. In this sense, he is truly arrogant, but he tries

to pass it off as humility by starting or ending his sentences with “I flatter myself”, and trying to

justify his position: “I feel myself compelled by my position as a clergyman”, “as a clergyman,

moreover”, etc. He seems to feel the need to emphasize the fact that he is a clergyman as a point

of special interest or authority in nearly every situation. Mr. Collins, too, made a spectacle of

himself at the Netherfield ball by giving his opinion (loudly) about music in general and as it

relates to himself as a clergyman: “…for I consider music as a very innocent diversion, and

perfectly compatible with the profession of a clergyman…”19. Confucius would likely hear

many of Mr. Collins’ speeches and say that, “Exemplary persons (君子) understand what is

appropriate (义); petty persons understand what is of personal advantage (利)”20. While Mr.

Collins appears to try very hard to follow the rules of etiquette, he is trying too hard, with little to

no success, and is attempting to use the rituals in place as a form of self-promotion and societal

advancement among those of greater social consequence than himself. Mr. Collins appears to

have no substance, and only a very slight grasp of the style of ritual. This is likely why he is the

perfect recipient of Lady Catherine’s “good will”.

Lady Catherine is very like Mr. Collins: she tries too hard to maintain the appearance of

always correctly following ritual while simultaneously furthering her own situation. Because of

11

her social position as a wealthy woman, Lady Catherine is able to wield ritual to her advantage

by forcing her will upon others; and she does so with a high degree of self-importance. For

example, she tells Elizabeth, Maria Lucas and the Collinses of how she placed four young ladies

in homes as governesses. When Mr. Darcy and his cousin Colonel Fitzwilliam come for a visit

and are speaking with Elizabeth about music, Lady Catherine interjects, “I must have my share

in the conversation, if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose,

who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste”21. This is an

extreme compliment to herself; however, she shows her own vanity and weakness in the very

next sentence: “If I had every learnt, I should have been a great proficient”22. Lady Catherine

critiques Elizabeth’s performance on the pianoforte while having no demonstrated musical

ability of her own; she gives her opinion and passes judgement on a subject of which she has no

true understanding or authority. This, to Confucius, would likely be more offensive than Mr.

Collins’ arrogant humility, because Lady Catherine makes no attempt to be humble—she is pure

arrogance and pride; she sees herself as above the rituals of society. “Ate up with pride” is also

the way that Mr. Darcy is viewed throughout almost the entire novel.

Mr. Darcy is likely the one character of whom Confucius would most approve. Although

he is terrible at conforming to the style of ritual, Mr. Darcy is very good at performing the

substance of ritual. His appearance, especially in the beginning of the book, is one of prideful

disdain; everyone thinks he holds himself “far above his company”. To some extent, this is true,

but as the reader continues through the story, he or she finds out that in reality Mr. Darcy is

merely intensely private and reserved; even Wickham states that among his friends Darcy is

liberal-minded and agreeable, although he phrases this more as an example of Darcy’s pride, by

stating that “among those who are at all his equals in consequence, he is a very different man”23.

12

Towards the latter quarter of the novel, especially after Elizabeth’s reproofs at Hunsford, Darcy

shows himself to be very different: he is much more determined to please than he had been, and

is making a much more concerted effort to follow the style of ritual. This is especially true when

Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle Gardiner are visiting Pemberley in their travels and come

across him on the grounds: he is very friendly towards Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner; he offers his

grounds and equipment to Mr. Gardiner for fishing and invites the three of them to dinner at

Pemberley. Confucius would approve of Mr. Darcy because, even though he is lacking in style,

he is genuine in substance; correcting the style of ritual is much easier than correcting a lack of

substantial feelings. From a Confucian perspective, Mr. Darcy is, therefore, much easier to

understand than Elizabeth.

Next to Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth Bennet is the most well-known character in Pride &

Prejudice. Like Mr. Darcy, overall she is very good at maintaining the substance of ritual,

although she does despair of ever correcting her immediate family members and her general

acquaintance. Unlike Mr. Darcy, however, she is much better at performing the style of ritual in

addition to the substance; she is better at marrying together both style and substance in her

general behavior. Elizabeth understands the nuances and minutiae of social etiquette and is able

to successfully navigate them. Although, she does lack some of the substance for the first part of

the story: rather than be ashamed of her family’s lack of propriety, Elizabeth, like Mr. Bennet,

chooses to laugh at them instead. After Mr. Darcy’s proposal at Hunsford and the subsequent

letter, however, she is no longer laughing at her family’s lack of propriety; instead she feels all

the shame that Confucius would say she should have felt all along. “How despicably have I

acted!...Till this moment I never knew myself”24. In this way, she is the complement to Mr.

Darcy: while he improves in style, she improves in substance. Confucius would, no doubt,

13

highly approve of these improvements in both parties; these improvements in both style and

substance will undoubtedly allow both Elizabeth and Darcy to become even more proficient in

performing social ritual. In view of this, Confucius would say that Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are

vastly superior to the majority of their contemporaries.

The characters in Pride & Prejudice are not Confucian according to the standard term

definition. However, they do display characteristics that lend the book to a Confucian

interpretation: they value the particulars of etiquette and differentiate between appearances and

genuine propriety. Although they do not adhere to Confucian thought to the letter, that is they do

not adhere to etiquette and ritual as methods of promoting peace and harmony, Confucius would

likely approve of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet over all other characters, because they attempt

to do their best given the prevailing societal conditions. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth understand

each other better after the proposal scene at Hunsford Parsonage, and their relationship improves

by degrees in the succeeding chapters. By the end of the novel, not only are they married, but

Darcy and Elizabeth get along quite amicably. Darcy and Elizabeth prided themselves on being

more proper in the eyes of society than their contemporaries, and yet they exhibited folly as well.

Austen uses Darcy and Elizabeth, arguably her “best” characters by Regency standards,

as examples of the folly that everyone exhibits. Both characters possessed both pride and

prejudice towards the other. By blindly following social etiquette they did not understand the

other’s true personality and viewpoint. This seems to suggest that there is a degree of falseness

to all relationships in Regency era society which ritual not only facilitated, but encouraged. This

is exactly the sort of counterfeit social harmony which Confucius wished to prevent. Darcy and

Elizabeth, however, have the advantage over their relations, because they become aware of their

folly and become arguably more Confucian. They have a heightened awareness of the rituals of

14

their society, which has allowed them, like the sage kings, to in essence “look down” on the

people around them and see the workings of ritual in their relationships with others. The other

characters, by contrast, have shown no improvement throughout the course of the novel, and

remain in a state of perpetual impropriety. Perhaps they truly are, as Elizabeth says, “beyond the

reach of amendment”.

15

Bibliography

[1] http://www.commisceo-global.com/country-guides/uk-guide.

[2] https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/etiquette.htm.

[3] Ames, Roger T., Rosemont, Jr., Henry. “The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation”, 1.12. Random House Publishing, New York. 1998.

[4] Ramsey, John. “Confucian Role Ethics: A Critical Survey”. Philosophy Compass, vol. 11, Issue 5: 235-245. May 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12324/full.




[8] Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice, pp. 92. Everyman’s Library, by Alfred A. Knoff, New York. 1991.








16

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12324/full

https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/etiquette.htm

http://www.commisceo-global.com/country-guides/uk-guide










17

Documents

Pride & Prejudice and Confucius_Katherine Neal